Chennai Court July 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P. Kandasamy and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government, Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ555
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners have filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings in G.O.Ms. No: 400 dated 13.5.2003 of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Courts II-A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai and quash the same in so far as the properties belonging to them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the they have purchased the properties in their name and they do not stand in the name of the financial establishment viz., M/s. Kannagi Finance Corporation or its subsidiaries, or its members. There is no material to show that the properties were purchased out of the deposits collected from the depositors and that they are not even partners or members of the Financial Establishment, nor they are connected in any manner with the affairs of the financial establishment.3. However, the second respondent initiated penal proceedings against the said financial institution under the provisi...
Omega S.A. Vs. Avanti Kopp Electricals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC327(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned Judge dated 17.3.1997 in O. A. Nos. 29 and 30 of 1997 in C.S. No. 20 of 1997 on the file of this Court. 2. The parties in both the appeals are common. These two applications in the suit were filed for the grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit; one on the basis of infringement; and another on the basis of passing off action in respect of the plaintiff's trade mark, 'OMEGA'. Learned Judge has rejected both the applications by passing a common order. Hence these two appeals. 3. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the manufacturer and dealer in timepieces, time recording and registering apparatus and instruments, photo-electric apparatus and instruments and devices for transmitting electrical oscillations and electric control apparatus and instruments for several decades...
The Management of Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC175
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11436 of 1996 is the management and it has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the records in Complaint No. 2 of 1993 in I.D. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1993, pertaining to the Award, dated 8.11.1995, insofar as it relates to the relief of wages from 31.1.1993 till the date of award.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1145 of 1997 is the Workman and he has sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the same award insofar as it denies the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and directing the respondent/management to reinstate the petitioner/workman in service with continuity of service and all other benefits.3. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same award, they are heard together and a common order is passed. The parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No. l1436 of 1996 in this order.4. The second respondent/workman was e...
Gandhipuram Sarvodhaya Sangam Vs. the District Registrar Office of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad35
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 41692 of 2002 is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 17124 of 2003, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17124 of 2003 is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 41692 of 2002 and the first respondent in both the writ petitions is one and the same, viz. the District Registrar, Coimbatore. Therefore, the parties are arrayed as per the rank in Writ Petition No. 17124 of 2003.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17124 of 2003 in an earlier occasion filed Writ Petition No. 24191 of 2002 for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the second respondent Sangam, viz., Gandhipuram Sarvodaya Sangam, exercising the powers conferred under Section 36 of the Societies Registration Act and this Court by order dated 5-7-2002, permitted the petitioner to make a representation before the first respondent -- District Registrar within a period of two weeks from 5-7...
Purfina Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. the Customs, Excise and Gold Contro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC717; 2004(167)ELT145(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The writ petition, as originally filed, was for Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent dated 25.8.1994 and to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to permit the clearance of the goods in Bill of entry No.1398 dated 19.3.1993 as 'Ethyl Alcohol' under Open General Licence.2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed WPMP Nos.16953 and 16954 of 2002, seeking amendment of the prayer as well as raising additional ground relating to the subsequent events of abandonment of goods and the consequential prayer for refund of the amounts deposited towards redemption fine and penalty.3. In view of the subsequent events and amended prayer, it is neither necessary nor any submission has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, which would require this Court to go into the issue as to whether the impugned commodity is to be treated as 'Ethyl Alcohol' as claimed by the importer or to be treated as 'Consume...
Saraswathy, Vs. Tamizharasi and Vanathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC229; (2003)3MLJ444
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J. 1. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur dismissing an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking for a direction to the defendants to march their evidence, even before the evidence of the plaintiffs.2. From the available materials and the submissions made before the Court, it could be seen that it is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioners herein; that the suit is ripe for trial; and that at that time, the instant application has been filed for a direction to the defendants to march their evidence first and thereafter giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to march their evidence. The said application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 101 of Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners herein have filed a suit for permanent injunction. In order to get a relief, a duty is cast upon them and the onus is on them to prove not only the possession, bu...
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Subordinate Officers' Association, rep. by Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC193
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In W.P.No. 18545 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Declaration to declare that the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act No. 36 of 2002) is unconstitutional and ultra vires to the fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution of India. Along with the above writ petition three W.P.M.P.Nos. 23169 to 23171 of 2003.2. In W.P.M.P.No. 23169 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the impugned Tamil Nadu EssentialServices Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act 36 of 2002).3. In W.P.M.P.No. 23170 of 2003, the petitioner seeks to stay the operation of the impugned Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002 (Act 36 of 2002).4. In W.P.M.P.No. 23171 of 2003, the petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their subordinates from any manner registering the cases or arresting the Tamil Nadu Government Employees, members of the petitioner association under the provisions of t...
Raju and Parvathi Vs. Muthuammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad134; (2003)3MLJ20
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. In a suit for declaration and possession, in respect of the suit property, though the plaintiff succeeded before the trial Court with the support of the 7th defendant, failed in his attempt before the first appellate Court, when the same was questioned by the contesting defendants and the result is, this second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. The first appellant/plaintiff claiming title to the suit property viz., a house bearing Door No. 174/W6 Natham Survey No. 77/B/15A, alleging that this property originally belonged to one Ganapathy Ammal, which was succeeded by her only daughter as per law then prevailed, that on her death the property devolved upon her sons and daughters, that he obtained a release deed from other heirs of Pillaiyar Ammal, daughter of Ganapathy Ammal and therefore, he is entitled to the suit property as an absolute owner. Thus, tracing title, not only under a release deed dated 5.9.84, as well as tracing the previous title through his gran...
Kannan Vs. Govindasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ86
M. Thanikachalam, J. 1. In a suit for permanent injunction, the defendant successfully resisted the same before the trial Court, failed to oppose the appeal successfully and the result was, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the first appellate court's judgment, the defendant has come to this Court as appellant. 2. The plaintiff/respondent is the brother-in-law of the defendant/appellant. Admittedly, the suit property, an extent of 3 acre 28 cents in Survey No. 143/13 situate at Kothavacheri Village, Cuddalore Taluk belongs to the defendant. The defendant is working elsewhere at Cuddalore and the plaintiff is the resident of the suit village. 3. The plaintiff, claiming to be in possession of the suit property, on the basis of tenancy, alleging that lawful and legal possession was attempted to be disturbed, has filed the suit for bare injunction before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore in O.S. No. 709/90. 4. The defendant/appellant, more or less admitting the possession...
Selvam S/O Sundararaj Pillai Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4656; 2003(3)CTC153; 2003(89)ECC608
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The accused in C.C.No.83 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act cases, Thanjavur is the appellant in the above appeal. He was tried for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(i) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On being found guilty under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(i) of the Act, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month; and under Section 22 of the said Act, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 years, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal before this Court.2. Heard Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Abudukumar Rajarathinam,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »